I guess that you may get as good results with a Nikon D800 or even a Sony Alpha 99. I have been using Pentax 67 and shooting Velvia, so I know what I talk about. Well, it is possible I don't know everything.

By the way, I was shooting with my Pentax 67, 300/4 (non ED) and 1.4X extender and had a lot of problems with vibration from the shutter although using MLU and cable release. I was using a Manfrotto 055 tripod with a Bogen #3039 head. I replaced the Manfrotto 055/Bogen 3039 combo with a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF tripod and got sharp pictures at half of the weight. Those Manfrotto Hex QR plates are just bad designs, in my experience.

My experience is that 67 Velvia and 24 MP digital are pretty close in resolution, with advantage to 67 for high contrast detail. I was scanning up to 6096 PPI.

What I essentially want to say is that you don't need to invest 50000 $US in MFDB to replace a Pentax 67, a well chosen DSLR equipment for 5000$US will be just fine. It may be possible to get better results from MF than what I have achieved, but it takes experience, knowledge and a high end drum scanning equipment.

If you happen to read any of the articles I referred to, you will see that there is a lot of ground covered, not just resolution. I don't know exactly which posting you are referring to, there was a posting indicating that the poster regarded it necessary to invest in high end MF to replace Pentax 67 equipment. I have also Pentax 67 equipment which I replaced with DSLR.

The poster I was responding to indicated that he prints up to 6 feet wide. Resolution is quite interesting in that context.

The main problems I have with film are:

1) Turnaround time, I need to send film to a pro lab

2) Scanning. It takes a long time to scan images.

3) DMAX, Velvia has a very wide density range, DMAX is about 4.0. CCD based scanners will not handle as high DMAX well. With Ektar 100 I have seen the additional problem that individual color channels may be clipped, giving weird color.

Check the enclosed image of the white wall. The Sony image has much more detail. The detail of the 6096 PPI drum scan is significantly more distinct, but the image lacks much of the fine detail.

The red flower scans lack detail compared to the digital image, in my view. On the other hand very small detail in the reds can be lost on the digital image, due to the digital image having a "Bayer filter".

In the red flower shot I had some vibration from sensor based image stabilization. I have noticed it after high res scans of film were made. The "marble statue" images have no vibration issues, but in that case I have no 6096PPI drum scan.

Personally, I shoot film for fun, and sometimes when doing more serious shoots as a supplement to digital for the aesthetic of it, though then it is generally ultra-fine grain black and white films. For personal use my favorite film to shoot is ILFORD Delta 3200 on 35mm and 120 formats, although 3200 on 120 is one of my personal favorites.

@Eric, the OP wanted to know why some of us still shoot film, not why digital is or isn't better. Here's a chance for those of us who love film (and sometimes feel marginalised around here) to put our hands up and be counted.

I shoot with a Rollei SL66SE, a Yashicamat 124G, a Pentax LX and a nice little Nikon 35Ti, plus sundry pinhole cameras. I like the craft aspect of film. I develop b&w in my bathroom using Agfa Rondinax daylight tanks (35 and 120). My favourite colour film by far is Portra - love those magical colours. I scan it on my Konica-Minolta film scanner, or, if it's 120, on an Epson V750. The results are, to my eyes, beautiful. For years I've tried all manner of b&w films, but only shot my first roll of Tri-X this week! For years I swore by Fujifilm, but now all I care about is the slow, inexorable death of Kodak.

The reason I want to shoot 6x6 is purely because I want to shoot square. My prints will only be around 15"x15" and I would get an Epson V750 to do the scanning. Film would probably be Kodak T-Max 100.

I'm not sure yet what camera I would get, the Rollei 6008 and Hasselblad 503CW look nice. The Mamiya RZ67 looks good too, not very pricey either, just very heavy and not square.

You can get 6x6 backs for the RZ. They are rare. I decided on sticking with Blad over the 6008, only because I had the Blad and lenses already. Keep in mind that the 501cm is the same camera as the CW, but without the winder capability. The 503cx is really nice as well, and cheaper. The Epson will get you the file you need. Get the betterscanning holders, makes a world of difference.

My reply was not explained, and I apologize. I've read several of your posts/links on comparing your P67 to the A900. My results were different, but I don't shoot scenics so I'm looking for different qualities in an image and, at the time I read your links a while back, I was shooting editorials. For instance, I hate Velvia. The blacks are always crushed unless you drum scan, and even then the color is odd to me. Again, I shoot people and Velvia is not suited to it.

With a Nikon or Imacon and Portra, I get better color and DR than any digital camera I've used. I also get a look that can only come from a big piece of film, bigger than 645. I've also spent too much time with scanners since 2001 or so.

I understand how you found that you Sony beats you Pentax and Minolta. You like Velvia, and shoot scenics, so resolution and stopped down sharpness are important, as well as easily accessible (no drum scanning) DR. The Sony can get you there without spending all of your time operating a scanner or paying for drum scans. However, if you take portraits, and shoot reversal film, color or B&W, the bigger than 645 sensor, lenses, and baked in color and curves allows me to get what I'm after.

If you happen to read any of the articles I referred to, you will see that there is a lot of ground covered, not just resolution. I don't know exactly which posting you are referring to, there was a posting indicating that the poster regarded it necessary to invest in high end MF to replace Pentax 67 equipment. I have also Pentax 67 equipment which I replaced with DSLR.

The poster I was responding to indicated that he prints up to 6 feet wide. Resolution is quite interesting in that context.

The main problems I have with film are:

1) Turnaround time, I need to send film to a pro lab

2) Scanning. It takes a long time to scan images.

3) DMAX, Velvia has a very wide density range, DMAX is about 4.0. CCD based scanners will not handle as high DMAX well. With Ektar 100 I have seen the additional problem that individual color channels may be clipped, giving weird color.

Check the enclosed image of the white wall. The Sony image has much more detail. The detail of the 6096 PPI drum scan is significantly more distinct, but the image lacks much of the fine detail.

The red flower scans lack detail compared to the digital image, in my view. On the other hand very small detail in the reds can be lost on the digital image, due to the digital image having a "Bayer filter".

In the red flower shot I had some vibration from sensor based image stabilization. I have noticed it after high res scans of film were made. The "marble statue" images have no vibration issues, but in that case I have no 6096PPI drum scan.

Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe. As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available. Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes. I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated high end scanner, but its good enough for me.

@Eric, the OP wanted to know why some of us still shoot film, not why digital is or isn't better. Here's a chance for those of us who love film (and sometimes feel marginalised around here) to put our hands up and be counted.

Thank you ! If you feel the need to make a comment about film vs. digital, please refrain from hitting the "Reply" button and post it elsewhere.

Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe. As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available. Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes. I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated high end scanner, but its good enough for me.

I'm doing both as well but now that I'm making 40" prints I'm drum scanning and printing digitally; I love the tonality achievable with the latest inkjets and piezography inks and the endless choices of papers; film and inkjet are a wonderful combination.

The way I interpreted the original posting is that the poster sold of his digital MF equipment and considered to switch to MF film instead. My point was mostly that full frame digital is in many senses a good alternative to medium format film.

Also, I think some poster said that you needed 50000 $USD worth of MF equipment to replace a Pentax 67 equipment, that is clearly not my experience. Replacing 4x5" may be a different case.

The third issue is that if you go from MFD to MF film you need to consider scanning equipment, film development and so on.

Drum scanning can be very expensive, I had two 6096PI scans made from 55x69 film, got one for free and a very low price of 20€ for the second one, but commercial price would be about 200€ each. Those files were 1.5 GByte.

My reply was not explained, and I apologize. I've read several of your posts/links on comparing your P67 to the A900. My results were different, but I don't shoot scenics so I'm looking for different qualities in an image and, at the time I read your links a while back, I was shooting editorials. For instance, I hate Velvia. The blacks are always crushed unless you drum scan, and even then the color is odd to me. Again, I shoot people and Velvia is not suited to it.

With a Nikon or Imacon and Portra, I get better color and DR than any digital camera I've used. I also get a look that can only come from a big piece of film, bigger than 645. I've also spent too much time with scanners since 2001 or so.

I understand how you found that you Sony beats you Pentax and Minolta. You like Velvia, and shoot scenics, so resolution and stopped down sharpness are important, as well as easily accessible (no drum scanning) DR. The Sony can get you there without spending all of your time operating a scanner or paying for drum scans. However, if you take portraits, and shoot reversal film, color or B&W, the bigger than 645 sensor, lenses, and baked in color and curves allows me to get what I'm after.

It might be surprising for most digital photographers, but the quality of film has been enhanced over the last years. I am shooting mostly Kodak Portra 4x5 and scan them on a Hell Linotype Drumscanner.The results are stunning. The new emulsions are crystal clear and produce a very high resolution.

If Kodak would stay, I would stay with film. But I guess this is a different story....

Portra is simply fantastic, is not just comparing resolution of scanned film v digital, it's the overall look that's more important. It can look saturated and pastel all at the same time. I shoot MF portra and scan at 32bit on a Coolscan. I'm debating wether when I restore my darkroom to include the facility to do wet colour prints as well as B&W. I know digitising gives more choice, but I kind of like the restriction of 12 shots and straight printing untouched by Photoshop or a computer .Yes Kodak is the limiting factor, I hope someone else picks the ball up from Kodak. One thing is for sure, film will missed when it's gone, so anyone wondering about giving it go. Do it now while you still can, you can pick of quality film cameras for not a lot. Even if you bought a Hasselblad it will be worth the same in a year or two's time unlike digital.Kevin.

Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe. As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available. Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes. I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated high end scanner, but its good enough for me.

If I had a darkroom available to me I'd make more darkroom prints on fiber. I've also developed an alergy to some of the chemistry, which sucks. I get hives and all itchy from the fix. The depth of a fiber print is unreal. The issue is, of course, that there are few if any public darkrooms anymore, and rental and materials fees add up if you get out of the habit of making prints, especially color and fiber B&W. It just takes time to get your groove back after a few months. When I was shooting editorials on film I had the prints made by Lamount in NYC. It was an incredible process because you tell them what you want, stand there with them at the enlarger, at the chem baths or on the other end of the Colex machine, and give directions.

I do like the Epson printers and the digital darkroom. It works well for me. I like the papers and teh precise color grading you can do in PS. In truth, Portra doesn't need much adjustment, but if I want to, its all there in PS.

There is a great public darkroom here in San Francisco. It's http://harveymilkphotocenter.org/You don't have to be a resident of the city to use it or take classes though there are quite a few offered such as dark room printing, etc. The city staff makes up the chemicals and you just process and print. You only need your film and paper. The staff even takes your prints out of the bath (if you want) washes and drum dries them for you. They have a digital lab with some Macs, scanners, and a epson 4000 and 7900 printer.

I'm often there on Saturdays. There is a membership, but its really low cost - $5 a day or less. If anyone wants a day pass to check it out, just send me a PM or e-mail and I can get you one.

btw - I'm helping them by creating a not for profit corporation to assist the whole arts center that the Harvey Milk Photo Center is part of.

Fantastic resource. I used Print Space in NYC for years and years. It wa sa great place to hang out while prints driend and talk shop with people. Thye had Imacons for rent as well. It was $13 an hour for color and $10 or $11 for B&W. Cheap C41 processing as well, like $4 a roll. Now I've moved and all of the public labs are gone. The Milk Center sounds fantastic. Wish I could get out there!

There is a great public darkroom here in San Francisco. It's http://harveymilkphotocenter.org/You don't have to be a resident of the city to use it or take classes though there are quite a few offered such as dark room printing, etc. The city staff makes up the chemicals and you just process and print. You only need your film and paper. The staff even takes your prints out of the bath (if you want) washes and drum dries them for you. They have a digital lab with some Macs, scanners, and a epson 4000 and 7900 printer.

I'm often there on Saturdays. There is a membership, but its really low cost - $5 a day or less. If anyone wants a day pass to check it out, just send me a PM or e-mail and I can get you one.

btw - I'm helping them by creating a not for profit corporation to assist the whole arts center that the Harvey Milk Photo Center is part of.

Kind of a follow on question... how many of those shooting film go onto to make traditional film prints?I'm doing both, but think the film prints can be very nice perhaps better overall, but prefer to edit in the digital darkroom.

Scanning is a pain, but I think worth it since its not so easy to emulate these looks with digital capture as people want you to believe. As TMARK pointed out some films capture more DR or its more usable, and there's the visual depth of the image recorded perhaps because of the larger formats available. Also film starts to win out over my MFDB at higher ISOs.

I have been shooting my negs with my CF 528 multishot back on a light table/copy stand - I have the Kaiser eVision executive hf copy stand which has the flicker free 40kh ballast lights built into the bed. This seems to get a good file quickly and I can 'scan' 5 rolls worth of 120 film in about 30 minutes. I'm sure I could do better with wet mounting or with a dedicated high end scanner, but its good enough for me.

I do... when I can. I'm in an apartment so no room for a full time darkoom. Making a print is an hour long process of just dragging junk out, then another hour cleaning up and putting stuff away. So once in a while when I have a few prints I really want to make, well, I'll make them.

Here is a scanned neg that I toned in Camera Raw, but I made a nearly identical split toned 5x7 print of this on Ilford Warmtone. I never could get the scan of the print to do it any justice. Conowingo dam, Conowingo MD. Mamiya 645 AFD, 35mm, Delta [email protected]

It's nothing award winning but it's a place dear to me. Many a cold winter day spent there chasing bald eagles

I do... when I can. I'm in an apartment so no room for a full time darkoom. Making a print is an hour long process of just dragging junk out, then another hour cleaning up and putting stuff away. So once in a while when I have a few prints I really want to make, well, I'll make them.

Here is a scanned neg that I toned in Camera Raw, but I made a nearly identical split toned 5x7 print of this on Ilford Warmtone. I never could get the scan of the print to do it any justice. Conowingo dam, Conowingo MD. Mamiya 645 AFD, 35mm, Delta [email protected]

It's nothing award winning but it's a place dear to me. Many a cold winter day spent there chasing bald eagles